Reflections on Media Coverage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalWizrd, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #1
    It seems that even a liberal Democrat can see that the media treatment of the Republican nominating process is not quite objective.

    I didn't find this to be surprising. Comments from others might be interesting.

    P.S. The bolding in the quote was added by me for emphasis.
     
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2
    The Rat King has been a foregone conclusion for several years. It is the way the Republican party's nomination process works, kind of like a queue. Next! The media are looking for some kind of story, something to escape the tedium of the next eight months before the general. It is not a matter of poor coverage, it is just fear of boredom.
     
  3. CalWizrd thread starter Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #3
    Oh, I see. It has nothing to do with media objectivity.

    I guess the author just doesn't possess your insight.
     
  4. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    If the media were so biased, why would they print that story? I guarantee you Fox News didn't post anything similar during the last election cycle when it was the democrats beating each other up.
     
  5. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #5
    She is a political commentator that writes for multiple newspapers, websites (including FOX news) and I'm sure they printed it to show unbiasedness without truly having their own reporter write it up, and it most likely showed up in the opinion section.

    Do some research before you assume. I would of thought they taught that to you in law school. ;)

    ---

    To the OP, as you can see here you can't get anywhere with this forum. They will make every excuse possible to save their holy grail of politics they call Democrats. It is fun to see them squirm though, I'll give you that much.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    Squirming? Research? They didn't have to print the story, yet they did. To show how unbiased, I don't know, but even if so, doesn't that at least show an attempt? The corporate run media is anything but schills for the democrats. They were willing accomplices in the swiftboat smears, and they were passive during the patently obvious lies of the GWB administration.

    The news is supposed to be the news. The facts should be verifiable. Period. I don't mind if a station hires commentators who are left or right or whatever, but if the facts are twisted, the station and newscasters should lose something. Maybe we need a news association that provides credentials to news agencies and news journalists. If you lie, you lose them.

    Speaking of facts, Mitt hasn't exactly shown the ability to attract a majority of republican voters. That, along with the fact that there are many stories of establishment republicans hating him, lead to the inescapable conclusion that his wins aren't being viewed with as much enthusiasm as they could be.

    It's a story. It may not be right, but it's supported by the facts.
     
  7. CalWizrd thread starter Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #7
    I'm well aware of the proclivity of the members (majority, anyway) on this forum, so no surprises.

    BTW, they don't squirm. They justify and rationalize. Really excellent at it. I find that I typically just run out of patience after a while. "Black is black. Nope, you're wrong. Black is white. Here are 10,000 cited references to prove it. Go ahead. Match my 10,000 with your 10,000. blah blah".

    But it's fun to stumble on to something like I posted, just to see what convoluted logic will be used to refute it.
     
  8. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    Out of curiousity what do you expect the news to do? The primaries are going forward, and if they annointed Mitt as the winner at this stage, wouldnt' that be unfair to the other candidates? They are saying that they are going to win SC and be the nominee, so what makes them so wrong?
     
  9. leekohler, Jan 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012

    leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    It's more fun to watch conservatives try to justify any of their views, especially trickle down economics that has been their biggest failure of all. Proven time and again not to work, but that doesn't stop them from trying it again and again. And who's saying black is white?

    The fact of the matter is, conservatives are mostly wrong. They're wrong on gay rights, wrong on the taxes, wrong on other personal freedoms (which they claim to cherish), wrong on health care (also proven over and over by countless other countries). So what does that leave?

    Oh- the press isn't being fair to Mitt Romney. Wow. Well maybe they're right about that.
     
  10. CalWizrd thread starter Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #10
    It seems that I just happen to agree with the author of the article I posted with regard to the media's reluctant and tepid commentary. Read it again. I'm sure she did a much better job describing it than I could do.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    indeed, especially the the right wing media, which has been viciously anti Romney all through the nominating process. They seem intent on destroying him no matter how well he does
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    Ah the rusty dog whistle "liberal media". What a load of meadow muffins. I used to work for a local newspaper, I know how it all operates.

    You are not the media's customer, you are more like their medium in a way. Media is a business, first and foremost. They collect your eyes and ears with interesting and infuriating content in order to deliver your eyes and ears to their customers. The ones who fund them. The advertisers. As such, they must make sure that their content is reasonably compatible with their customers' needs. To me, that does not describe a liberal bias, to my mind it would the opposite. You, of course, will disagree.

    I find it annoying that when the content is not to your liking, it is the goddam "liberal" media. When I was young, "liberal" was not some kind of slur, that only happened around the time of president 666.

    And this "holy grail called Democrats" is absurd in the extreme. Many of the posters here are left-ish and yet view the Democrats as mere not the utter slimebags called Republicans. I do not much like Democrats as a group, but after about '78, I would be hard pressed to accept any Republican as worth a tinker's cuss. The last decent Republican died this past July in Oregon, now it is just "the 'G' in 'GOP' stands for 'Guano'".
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13

    Really sad that you are unable to back up your opinions talking points so you resort to insulting the rest of the posters here. Typical.
     
  14. Thomas Veil, Jan 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012

    Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #14
    Pretty much my thoughts as I read the original post.

    As Sydde alluded to, the media seem to be primarily interested in the horse race, not candidates' positions. That means they'll examine that from all angles, not unlike sports writers dissecting yesterday's game looking for reasons why someone won or lost. It's cheap surface-level stuff, but there it is. It's designed to sell, not to be some kind of imagined bias.

    Which means this topic is just more self-justification for those who want to believe in the liberal media bogey man.

    I don't know why this is so hard for conservatives to understand.

    Edit: here's a link to the original article.
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Do you just lurk around here looking to snipe about what other people post or do you post substantive comments? Your entire post is nothing but insulting another poster without any substance. Not even a talking point.

    Clearly you disagree, but why? What is your opinion, and why? It's impossible to debate someone who has no opinion, only snark.
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16
    Sunday morning political shows

    Sunday 18 December
    This Week: Paul Ryan, Barney Frank, George Will and Robert Reich
    Face the Nation: Newt Gingrich
    Meet the Press: John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann and Haley Babour

    Conservatives 6, Democrats 2

    Sunday 11 December
    Face the Nation: Michele Bachmann, Steve King
    This Week: John Huntsman
    Meet the Press: Ron Paul, Lindsey Graham, Governor Branstad and Dick Durbin

    Conservatives 6, Democrats 1

    MSNBC morning political show, Morning Joe, hosted by Joe Scarborough (R)

    Your 'liberal' media. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Macky-Mac, Jan 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012

    Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    they must not be paying any attention to the right wing media or they'd really be upset about how "the media treatment of the Republican nominating process is not quite objective."

    Some sample reports about yesterday's primary from the right wing media;

    Joe Podhoretz writing for the right wing leaning NY Post


    Peter Ferrara writing for the right wing leaning The American Spectator
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

    The media (by which I mean anyone who makes a living by selling advertisers your eyeballs or ear drums) is interested in the excitement of the race. They want action because viewers want action. They want close votes because that keeps people tuned in. They want a dozen polls everyday because the audience wants new results on the hour every hour.

    The same thing happened in 2008 with Clinton and Obama. And before that it happened with everyone who wasn't John Kerry. And before that with Bush and McCain. And before that with everyone who wasn't Dole. And before that with Tsongas and Clinton.

    For my money, Mitt Romney should be less concerned with the field of weak Ricks and Newts and more concerned about Ron Paul. Paul doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination, but he could fracture the general election vote as a third party, depress Republican turnout in the demographics which count (since they are turning out for Paul right now), or win just enough delegates to force a brokered convention, making Mitt Romney's general election candidacy shorter and less robust.
     
  19. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #19

    If you think my post violates the rules, then report it. And please, you are the last person on MR who should be talking about a substantive debate.
     
  20. soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #20
    How do you say he clearly disagrees but then say his entire post is lacking substance? Is it possible he didn't need "substance" in order to be opinionated in the debate? Maybe the post contained just enough substance to let you know how he felt without him needing to follow your rules of debate.
     
  21. mcrain, Jan 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    I don't almost never report other posters. I can hold my own in a substantive debate, and I have thick skin.

    Speaking of which, I know I occassionally post fluff, but I think my posts generally are on subject and contain at least some fact, opinion or combination.

    Speaking of which, I'm still not sold on the concept that Mitt's been shorted in the news. His wins haven't been stellar, the party is still not unified, and there are still more primaries and candidates to contend with.

    Do you think it would be ok for the news to call the race at this point? I mean, isn't it a bit premature?
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    First, I'd say that elections make everyone stupid. Second, keep in mind that the references and article all refer to televised news casts, which is not the sum total of the "media."

    So, let me get this straight. The media is biased, but when they present an "alternative" opinion it's to show "unbiasedness."

    Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Exactly.
     

Share This Page